Slashdot Mirror
Is Hacktivism Robin Hood Politics?
deran9ed writes "After reading an article at Guardian Unlimited, I wondered what was Slashdot's viewers' thoughts on "Hacktivism", the act of hacking for a so called cause, according to a Guardian Unlimited article: Once hacking was regarded as the pastime of attention-grabbing nerds. But a meeting at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London will be told how credible an activity it has become in the era of direct action. Old-fashioned hacking, the meeting will hear, has given way to hacktivism: a highly politicised underground movement using direct action in cyberspace to attack globalisation and corporate domination of the internet. Either way you cut the cake its still illegal, but is it along the realms of say the Vietnam Era protests, or are hacktivist using this term to promote themselves." The vast majority of so called "Hactivism" just isn't. I think that in
most cases the intentions are good, but the folks capable of, say, defacing a website, usually aren't the same folks able to intelligently communicate a message. Instead of looking like political activists staging a sit-in, they look like angry teens spraying graffiti obscenities on a wall which does far more damage then good.
In the UK 'hacktivism' is the current media vogue. There was an hour long TV programme about it recently.
The most 'hacky' person they could find was someone that wrote a VB script that accessed a web site every 7 seconds... This 'notorious hacker' (:/) explained "we had thousands of people doing this to a website and we certainly made our point!". Well 7000 hits/second isn't a particularly huge load to a big commercial website (I'd bet microsoft.com gets a hell of a lot more than that in normal traffic). Also writing VB script to load a web page isn't 'hacking' it's called 'typing in the example program'.
I'd love to know why all the self-confessed 'geeks' on the programme seemed to have green hair????
As usual the media trying to create something that doesn't really exist, and missing the point entirely.
Ever since the 'Battle' of Seattle, activism has grown in popularity to fill the gap left by the Grateful Dead ever since the death of Jerry Garcia.
Plane-loads of adolescents and stunted adults dazed with their own self-importance now tour the world chasing WTO type events wherever they can find them, spurned on by the Internet Activist pop-culture hero of the week or month.
You probably won't find them in Indonesia, though, protesting indiscriminate inter-tribal slaughter or anything like that. They like the more media-friendly events where they hope to become counter-cultural icons themselves, and get pissed when their childish antics fail to make the front page (Joan What's-her-tits).
Oh well!
**>>BELCH
"When was the last time political assassination was called shootivism?"
Some assassinations are called "democratic revolutions". Some assassinations are called "sentences". Everything is not black and white.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
"There's a big difference between staging a sit-in and defacing someone's property."
And there is also a difference between defacing "property" and defacing a website. If no data is lost, what exactly is the damage done? The damage is some denial of service, and clean up aftwards. Not unlike sit-ins.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
RANT ON
Hacking is hacking, criminals are criminals. The normal "press" may not understand that, but surely a majority of people on this site do.
When was the last time political assassination was called shootivism?
Rant Off
Lando
/* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
Not suprising. General activism attracts these types as well . . . whenever I see the TV news interviewing some protestors at [whatever protest is currently going on in downtown DC], I get the impression that many of them are there to be cool with their friends.
"Uh, we're protesting, uh, bad corporations, and, uh, the effect on, uh, world politics. Yo, check it out, I got beat up by a cop!"
Very rarely acheaves anything. Much of the protest movement these days is interested in what I have seen refered to as "Scoarched Earth" protesting, which is protesting for the sake of protesting and being a general pain in the ass but without any hope of actualy getting anything done. At the end of the day they have not gotten what they want or even part of what they want they have mostly just been a pain in everyone's neck.
I don't think the so called "Hacktavists" are in any way advancing a cause they are just being political vandals.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Whenever I see protests against the WTO or its ilk, I always think that the most extreme people are just being 'hooligans', so to speak. They're not there because they have a legitimate desire to effect change, but because it gives them an excuse to act up. I think in this case they're giving too much credit to the online graffiti artists. Or, perhaps I'm just being too cynical.
--
That's because they are terrorists.
I'm sorry, but burning your draft card and marching in protest of an unjust war is one thing. Vandalism of somebody else's property, motivated by unjustified anger for daring to (gasp!) open a factory in Hong Kong, is completely different. In the first case, we are talking about conciencious objection and free speech against excessive military force, in the second, we are talking about cowardly attacks on the institutions which create the economy that allows you the free time to commit these childish crimes.
Go ahead, mod me down as "flamebait" if you are so inclined... as if I give a fuck about what some isolationist, paranoid, hot-headed, jobless web-vandal thinks.
Real hackers are typically working as consultants to global companies, not wrecking their stuff.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
...they always mean "Distinctions between one kind of egg and another are never relevant".
And it's just *never* true. The assertion that "criminals are criminals" mindlessly lumps in Nelson Mandela with Jeffery Dahmer. "Hacking is hacking" puts RMS in the same category as RTM.
As it happens, I'm generally against breaking into computer systems as a political act; I just thought you should know that statements like "criminals are criminals" is a big flag that you're going to be talking nonsense.
--
Xenu loves you!
Sheesh
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
I have to agree here. As much as I like the idea of this hacktavism, in theory, in practice its not going to work. I really get the feeling that this is the work of some people who just don't grasp the true nature of what they are fighting against.
It reminds me alot of "Propaganda By example". Its good to learn from history. An anarchist campaign about a hundred years ago aimed at usining assasination and bombing to bring down the wrath of government, and sew distrust and malcontent with the government.
In theory its great. In practice it backfired so horribly that 100 years later bombs and mindless destruction are still synonomous with anarchism in many peoples minds.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
A cracker is somebody who cracks warez, and/or a pejorative term for a white person. Any other meaning is never going to catch on in the media, nor with the old school. It's just too complicated to remember the distinction all the time. The people who are hackers by anybody's definition have done some... uh... mischevious things in their time; it's part of the nature of the beast. To say that "a real hacker would never break into a computer system" indicates - to me - a lack of understanding of the original meaning of the word. Of course a real hacker would break into a computer system, if it was an interesting enough problem and they didn't anticipate anybody having a problem with it. I agree that the media should widen it's definition of what a hacker is, but that's not the argument I usually see, especially here on slashdot. I see a lot more of "they aren't a real hacker, because they break into systems and/or do security stuff", which is plain silly.
Personally, I refer to people by whatever term they would like me to use, unless I don't like them.
Besides which, if you are doing something unexpected, unforseen, or disallowed to any system (which is my pocket definition of hacking) somebody is always going to think it's bad, until you laboriously convince them otherwise, on a case by case basis.
Why get caught up in semantic arguments when you could be doing cool things and get noticed for THAT, instead?
The only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter: one's on our side. The assorted Palestinian groups are freedom fighters, but because "our side" happens to be Israel, the US media brands them as terrorists.
This idea, though, kind of falls apart when you deal with the ELF types, though. I suppose that they're fighting for the Earth's freedom, though, so this might still apply.
style protests.
Oddly enough, one of the things I remember about them is angry teens spray painting graffiti.
I also remember riots, tear gas, shootings, stealing from "the man", kids dying from drug overdoses, etc.
Jerry Rubin, bless his little insurance selling little Yippie heart, entitled his book " Do It!" ( Perhaps he should have sued Nike?)
The phrase comes from a suggestion in the book. Jerry advises angry, protesting teens to walk into a bank and attempt to hold them up by threatening to shit on the floor, and if they refuse to give you the money. . . Do it!
Yeah, angry teens used to be so much better than they make them today.
KFG
I know, I know, semantics. But still, it would be nice if the word at least reflected what people are really doing: cracking into other people's systems to make their voices heard.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
As such, it is to be encourage. People who enjoy breaking into computer systems will never disappear - it is far better to have them be white hats than black.
The average 'hacker (surely it should be 'cracktivism') enjoys breaking into computer systems for the intellectual thrill of it, and also the illicit thrill. It might be wise then to keep hacktivism's slightly disreputable reputation - it is important that they still get the illicit thrill, whilst still being white hats.
--
Totally irrelevent. That national guard was acting on behalf of Authority, and as such, the Authority is just as responsible for the Kent State massacre as the chinese Authority is of the Tienanmen square massacre.
--
Personally I think the general defacement of a website is downright dumb and those responsible seem to forget its outright illegal for one.
Its nice to get a message across but hacking for a so called cause only makes things worse for the hackers, and can sometimes work to the advantage of the target, as they can turn it around and misconstrue the scenario as something of a terroristic attacks. Not only that but the media has the whole concept of hackers distorted to hell due to some of these "hackers'" actions
I've interviewed about a dozen of hackers, a virus creation group, and a script kiddiot defacer. Now the "hackers" I've interviewed are not what media considers hackers, these are professionals in the security field so don't get it distorted, however the script kiddiot defacer and others I've spoken with use the curtain of "hacktivism" to solely get attention, nothing more.
If someone really wants to get a point across I think they should start an organization and speak up on it to raise awareness. "Hacking" to promote an idea is no better than what the Chinese did at Tiananmen Square in my eyes, its painting the kettle black at any cost.
Don't get me wrong I believe in Freedom of Speech, Privacy and all that good stuff, but at the same time I hate racism, I will not condone someone from saying what they want on a racist site. I don't think double standards should apply on subjects, and while some of the older hackes from the mid - late 90's were funny as all hell, no one has the right to take away someone freedom of mind, speech.
360 degrees of Karma
We have a long history of civil disobedience. However that disobedience wasn't destructive. There's a big difference between staging a sit-in and defacing someone's property. I'm bothered by the trend torwards destructive behavior in the name of civil disobedience. It is totally unacceptable. Having a noble cause doesn't make it right. If it did, we'd be supporting all terrorists as they firmly believe their cause is noble and right too.
Boycotts don't work anymore - at least not against the large multinationals. Want to boycott RJR Nabisco? No more Kraft Mac and Cheeze for you! Disney? May as well turn off the TV. Sony? Forgetabout it. They have their hands in just about every aspect of your life - you may as well forget any form of entertainment you know about. Even if you do manage to hit one business group, the corporation can easily spin this to their own advantage.
I imagine many people are boycotting DVDs or CDs due to the MPAA/RIAA. These groups can easily claim that lack of sales was not due to boycotts, but to theft from "those meddling hackers and their mangy mutt".
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."